Psychiatry and big pharma

espinolman

Mahatma coat wrote: »

but I dont quite grasp the 'Roller Ride' reference,

Lets say someone falls off a cliff , they would drop their body before they reach the ground , they know they are going to die so they let go of the body before they reach the ground , thats why it works on a roller-coaster ride !

Mahatma coat

Thats rather interestin as a concept, and thankyou for clearin up what you meant, but I think that merits its own thread in a different Forum(mybe the Expand your Horizons Forum) as we would run the risk of veering OT again in this thread and there has been a Mod Warning already about that sort of thing.

hazardous

Wow, just wow.

Someone very close to me works in PSYCHIATRY (not psychology, which whilst also having its merits, is not a medical discipline, so please stop mixing the two of them up or using them interchangeably), and from what I can tell a lot of growth in people being prescribed medication is simply down to those people looking for medication.

Whilst there are many deserving cases out there, a lot of people are just too damn lazy to accept responsibility for their lives and more than happy to use a medical condition, as a crutch or an excuse, whether it is the case for them or not.

You can't solely blame a medical profession for an increasing number of peoples willingness to take the easy option instead of taking responsbility.

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Lysergic acid diethylamide

I find it both hysterical and hypocritical that you dismiss the entire body of psychiatric pharmacology as addictive junk, but at the same time seem to give tact approval to a psychotropic drug.

drkpower

Mahatma coat wrote: »

IMO it matters a lot whether the diagnosis was Psychiatric or not, psychiatry seems to just make thing up to fit their drugs.

I was lethargic and 'ClinicalyDepressed' once

I've beento a psychiatrist and I found thata lot oftheir questions were subjective and leading to push me down the route of a diagnosis which required medication, turns out all I needed was a bit of rest and a change in diet.
I refused to take the pills, I asked the doctor how long the prescription was for and he said it could be something I take every day of my life from then on out.
No thanks.

Puzzling....

Why didnt you try the rest/diet first? Most people who are feeling lethargic and down would try rest, maybe exercse, changing simple lifestyle factors before going to a psychiatrist? Didnt you?

Did you take any of the advice provided by your psychiatrist? And if not, could it be that he didnt give you the answer you wanted, rather than him giving you the wrong answer....?

Insight is often lacking in patients with psychiatric illness.

espinolman

hazardous wrote: »

and from what I can tell a lot of growth in people being prescribed medication is simply down to those people looking for medication.

I think growth in people being prescribed "medication" is down to their local GPs pushing psychiatric "medication" .

Diogenes

espinolman wrote: »

I think growth in people being prescribed "medication" is down to their local GPs pushing psychiatric "medication" .

Thats nice. However it's highly unlikely a GP will give out psychiatric medicine. They'll refer you to a specialist.

espinolman

Diogenes wrote: »

They'll refer you to a specialist.

GPs can sign their patients into a psychiatric "hospital" against their patients will , and some do , if a particular GP ( not all GPs) did'nt like someone , some GPs can be sort of like the local commisar !

tim0ney

espinolman wrote: »

GPs can sign their patients into a psychiatric hospital against their patients will , and they do , if they don't like someone , they are sort of like the local commisar !

Are you for real??? Are you actually serious espinolman? Doctors have indemnity insurance for a reason, you know. They are not all-powerful. They have to abide by a code of ethics. If a practising GP did something similar to what you insinuated, they would be struck off the medical register for life. And this is totally disregarding the fact that checking someone you "don't like" into a psychiatric ward is morally abhorrent.

You display a shocking lack of knowledge on these issues for someone who is so involved on this thread. If you want to be taken seriously [and therfore your opinions taken seriously], injecting your posts with a modicum of common bloody sense would be a good idea.

espinolman

tim0ney wrote: »

You display a shocking lack of knowledge on these issues for someone who is so involved on this thread. If you want to be taken seriously [and therfore your opinions taken seriously], injecting your posts with a modicum of common bloody sense would be a good idea.

Now listen here , my last post i am talking from what i have seen from a certain GP years ago , maybe i should not have used a generallity in it , i'll change my post now so it does'nt include all GPs.

OK , i changed my post so it does'nt refer to all GPs .

Diogenes

espinolman wrote: »

GPs can sign their patients into a psychiatric "hospital" against their patients will , and they do , if they don't like someone , they are sort of like the local commisar !

You're talking immense crap. I mean nonsense. Please point out the legislation to support this assertion. really, cite it.

As I mentioned I have a friend who is Bi Polar, and despite being her diagnosis as such, the trauma and difficult her parents had when she was in in a full blown paranoid manic stage was nigh on impossible. She has been hospitalised three times, and I cannot express how close she came to losing her life by acting in complete disregard to her and others safety, and each time she had to voluntarily admit herself. We're talking about someone who once parked her car in someone's kitchen. And she still needed to volunteer for hospitalisation.

If you have diabetes, or asthma and refuse to take the medication, my doctor doesn't throw you in prison.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. If you'd like to prove me wrong you could cite the specific legislation that lets a GP drag you to a psych ward against your will. Knock yourself out, I'll be waiting.

espinolman

Diogenes wrote: »

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. If you'd like to prove me wrong you could cite the specific legislation that lets a GP drag you to a psych ward against your will. Knock yourself out, I'll be waiting.

I don't know about the legislation but i seen a GP do it ,here in Ireland , it was about 16 years ago , the GP and the psychiatrist had no real reason for that person being signed into that "hospital" against their will , you see i went to the "hospital" to find out why and the psychiatrist could'nt give me a genuine reason , so the psychiatrist released that person within a couple of hours of that person being signed in , it was very strange , because the psychiatrist told me initially that he this person was being kept for months and then i started questioning the psychiatrist as to why , he could'nt come up with a reason why !

uprising

Diogenes wrote: »

You're talking immense crap. I mean nonsense. Please point out the legislation to support this assertion. really, cite it.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. If you'd like to prove me wrong you could cite the specific legislation that lets a GP drag you to a psych ward against your will. Knock yourself out, I'll be waiting.

Mental Treatment Act 1945
Taking a person's liberty away is a major constitutional act. We are advised that we G.Ps. must have a good knowledge of the relevant law and carry out procedures to the letter of the law.

G.Ps. Actions

1. Adequately examine the patient on request and form an opinion.
2. On proper application, fill in the section on the form (pink almost always) recommending or not that the patient needs to be temporarily (less than six months) committed.
3. Remember, the patient is your prime concern and may need other clinical care and advice.
4. You may rarely need to call an urgent case conference with the Garda Superintendent, psychiatrist, community social worker, etc.
5. It may be wise sometimes to share the burden with a colleaque or telephone the A.G.P. for advice

Diogenes

espinolman wrote: »

I don't know about the legislation but i seen a GP do it ,here in Ireland , it was about 16 years ago , the GP and the psychiatrist had no real reason for that person being signed into that "hospital" against their will , you see i went to the "hospital" to find out why and the psychiatrist could'nt give me a genuine reason , so the psychiatrist released that person within a couple of hours of that person being signed in , it was very strange , because the psychiatrist told me initially that he this person was being kept for months and then i started questioning the psychiatrist as to why , he could'nt come up with a reason why !

So if I have this straight two doctors decided for the hell of it without reason to detain someone in a psychiatric ward, and then on your whim (because you don't say if you had legal responsibility over this person, so I can only assume you didn't.

You're basically saying two Doctors held someone against their will, and then when some stranger came forward, they released them with a shrug.

I cannot express how bizarre this concept you pertain to have happened is. At the very least both Doctors are opening themselves to massive personal and criminal liability.

I hate to call BS, but I call BS on this story unless you provide further details. What institute was this? What was the reason the Doctors originally detained this person for?

While I do accept that there are several deeply disturbing questions about the Irish Medical Health Industry, pregnant teenage girls getting sent to asylums as to "avoid a scandal." And living their lives in institutions.

Theres no way anyone gets sent to an extended stay into an institute and just because a mate asks into into it, do they get a get out of jail card free

Diogenes

uprising wrote: »

Mental Treatment Act 1945

Point of the act

However, the 1945 Act is unworkable in many circumstances. "Persons of unsound mind," (P.U.M.) to whom the Act mainly refers, are nowadays rare due to modern medication. "Temporary patients" are outside the remit of Garda escort.

The patient, who is the doctor's prime concern, must not be committed unless there is real need and sufficient clinical indication.

There are actions G.Ps. are not rerquired to do under the Act, including actions which may be illegal and leave them liable to be sued:

GPs **** themselves over enforced hospitalisation, it's terrifying, it leaves them open for so many different ways of getting sued it aint funny.

Taking a person's liberty away is a major constitutional act. We are advised that we G.Ps. must have a good knowledge of the relevant law and carry out procedures to the letter of the law.

G.Ps. Actions

1. Adequately examine the patient on request and form an opinion.
2. On proper application, fill in the section on the form (pink almost always) recommending or not that the patient needs to be temporarily (less than six months) committed.
3. Remember, the patient is your prime concern and may need other clinical care and advice.
4. You may rarely need to call an urgent case conference with the Garda Superintendent, psychiatrist, community social worker, etc.
5. It may be wise sometimes to share the burden with a colleaque or telephone the A.G.P. for advice

[/quote]

Did you miss what a GP must not do

What The G.P. Must Not Do

1. Do not administer any treatment without consent .
2. Do not have a supply of forms.
3. Do not fill in the applicant's selection.

http://www.agp.ie/mentalact1945.htm

All from your own piece.

GPs are terrified over mental health law, there are so many dangerous hoops to be leapt through they are terrified of opening themselves to massive indemnity, so unless the situation is incredibly drastic they will not commit someone against their will.

But Ta uprising for making my point for me.

You'll notice that

King Mob

After reading this link, it seems the absolute most a GP can do to get someone committed, is recommend it provided someone close to the patient applies for it.

Seems very very far from what espinolman thinks actually happens.

espinolman

uprising wrote: »

G.Ps. Actions

1. Adequately examine the patient on request and form an opinion.

Oh , form an opinion , so i am correct in saying some GPs can be sort of like the local commisar .

espinolman

King Mob wrote: »

After reading this link, it seems the absolute most a GP can do to get someone committed, is recommend it provided someone close to the patient applies for it.

Seems very very far from what espinolman thinks actually happens.

It does not seem very far from what i am saying happens . If someone does'nt like a relation , for whatever reason , they just have to go to that relations GP and the GP "forms an opinion" .

uprising

If a GP want's to commit a person to a mental institution, he can, he can not forcefully stick a needle in a person or force a pill down his throat, WHEN the person IS committed, the psychiatric doctor's can and do administer whatever they see fit.

For example: If a person is about to kill himself, a GP can have that person committed, while committed that person will have tranquilizers given if he agree's or not.
That is an example that a GP can have a person committed against the person's will, which you seem to contradict, but the bottom line is he can, and many have.

King Mob

espinolman wrote: »

It does not seem very far from what i am saying happens . If someone does'nt like a relation , for whatever reason , they just have to go to that relations GP and the GP "forms an opinion" .

Seriously?

So not only would the GP have to be out to get you so would your all family.
Oh and all the staff in the mental hospital would have to not like you as well.
And the Garda too.

You realise that the GP's opinion has to be based on medical analysis not something they think of off the top of their head.
And that they then have to put their name to that opinion as well.
If it was found out that the GP recommended you for committal based on their personal dislike, they'd not only lose their licence forever, they would be jailed?
The GP would really have to hate you.

Diogenes

espinolman wrote: »

Oh , form an opinion , so i am correct in saying some GPs can be sort of like the local commisar .

Yeah that your lurid comparisons. There are bits you missed

The patient, who is the doctor's prime concern, must not be committed unless there is real need and sufficient clinical indication.

What The G.P. Must Not Do

1. Do not administer any treatment without consent .

What the above legislation shows that your story is highly improbably a GP admitting someone against their will, and getting released just on your say so.

A GP admitting someone against their will needs to have a bloody good reason, and support from a psychiatris and someone like a senior Garda, the odds that they would commit someone against their will and then release them on your say so, is so far removed from reality that it beggars believe than you would try and pass off the story as true.

On the off chance it is true though. Why was this person you know committd? Where did this happen? Who agreed to release them? Why?

Occam

espinolman wrote: »

Oh , form an opinion , so i am correct in saying some GPs can be sort of like the local commisar .

You are talking absolute rubbish. Have a read of

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/health/mental-health/admission_to_a_psychiatric_hospital

1) A GP *cannot* permanently commit someone.

2) Even if Gardai, relatives and the GP colluded, a person can only be temporarily admitted for up to 24 hours.

3) Continued involuntary admission, involves an astounding appeals process, including appeal to a psychiatrist, the courts, and a three member mental health tribunal

Given the strength of these protections, most people are now only admitted whent they are an immediate danger to themselves or others, and in most cases this is instigated by family, calling the guards who take the person into custody.

King Mob

uprising wrote: »

If a GP want's to commit a person to a mental institution, he can, he can not forcefully stick a needle in a person or force a pill down his throat,

And if you read the link you posted you'd see that GPs can do no such thing even if they wanted to.

uprising wrote: »

WHEN the person IS committed, the psychiatric doctor's can and do administer whatever they see fit.

No they can't.

uprising wrote: »

For example: If a person is about to kill himself, a GP can have that person committed, while committed that person will have tranquilizers given if he agree's or not.

Also not true.
The link you provided clearly says that only the garda detain a person if they are a danger to themselves.

Garda Powers

1. If a person is a danger to himself or to others the Gardai have powrs to restrain him and detain him.
2. On request by the applicant, with an additional certificate from the doctor, the Gardai may escort a P.U.M.
3. The Gardai have no power to escort a temporary patient.
4. A P.U.M. may not be detained in a General Hospital.

And even then the garda need permission from someone close to the paitient to commit him anywhere.

uprising wrote: »

That is an example that a GP can have a person committed against the person's will, which you seem to contradict, but the bottom line is he can, and many have.

No it's not an example, it's something you made up with no basis in reality.

Diogenes

Again from personal experience watching a friends of mine parents literally pull their hair out in desperation trying to get their daughter committed, against her will, despite her history of psychotic manic episodes, anyone claiming that a GP can throw you into a padded cell against your will indefinitely is just flat out wrong.

Honestly this thread has just exposed the basic ignorance of some posters not just of the limits of our mental health system, but of their understanding of what mental illness is.

uprising

Get this into your head, ....Involuntary commitment

If a G.P. feel's a person should be committed to a mental institution, he can have that person committed, he can call the police, the police will restrain him, an ambulance would take him to hospital in restraints, he would be sedated and locked in a secure unit, padded cell.

The patient, who is the doctor's prime concern, must not be committed unless there is real need and sufficient clinical indication.

This means the person's the most important factor to the doctor, the person may not harm the person.

Garda Powers

1. If a person is a danger to himself or to others the Gardai have powrs to restrain him and detain him.
2. On request by the applicant, with an additional certificate from the doctor, the Gardai may escort a P.U.M.

The G.P. can be the applicant,

I cut a fella down from a suicide attempt, he was committed against his will, he was taken away in an ambulance, not a police car, the police weren't involved from what I saw, he was taken to hospital, from there to some mental institution, I was never contacted by the police, I helped get him into the ambulance, I was the only witness to what had happened, the garda never came looking for a statement, so I think a doctor made the decision.

Another fella I knew was committed for his own safety, a visit to a HSE psychologist and he was committed against his will, he admits he was a danger to himself at the time and deluded, but never the less, he WAS committed.

espinolman

Diogenes wrote: »

Honestly this thread has just exposed the basic ignorance of some posters not just of the limits of our mental health system, but of their understanding of what mental illness is.

Yes , however now these ignorant posters you mention know that a GP can sign a patient into a mental "hospital" thanks to uprising enlightening them as to the facts .

King Mob

uprising wrote: »

Get this into your head, ....Involuntary commitment

If a G.P. feel's a person should be committed to a mental institution, he can have that person committed, he can call the police, the police will restrain him, an ambulance would take him to hospital in restraints, he would be sedated and locked in a secure unit, padded cell.

No they can't, thye can detain him but they have no power to sedate him.
And even then he can only be held for 24 hours.

uprising wrote: »

The patient, who is the doctor's prime concern, must not be committed unless there is real need and sufficient clinical indication.

This means the person's the most important factor to the doctor, the person may not harm the person.

uprising wrote: »

Garda Powers

1. If a person is a danger to himself or to others the Gardai have powrs to restrain him and detain him.
2. On request by the applicant, with an additional certificate from the doctor, the Gardai may escort a P.U.M.

The G.P. can be the applicant,

No he can't. Applicant refers to the family member asking for the person to be committed.

uprising wrote: »

I cut a fella down from a suicide attempt, he was committed against his will, he was taken away in an ambulance, not a police car, the police weren't involved from what I saw, he was taken to hospital, from there to some mental institution, I was never contacted by the police, I helped get him into the ambulance, I was the only witness to what had happened, the garda never came looking for a statement, so I think a doctor made the decision.

Yes, when people are injured or are thought to be injured usually they go to the hospital in an ambulance.
After that you have no idea what happened or what decisions where made and by whom.
So you just decided the doctor did it against his will?

uprising wrote: »

Another fella I knew was committed for his own safety, a visit to a HSE psychologist and he was committed against his will, he admits he was a danger to himself at the time and deluded, but never the less, he WAS committed.

And is that all the detail you know?
Not very convincing,

uprising

Diogenes wrote: »

Again from personal experience watching a friends of mine parents literally pull their hair out in desperation trying to get their daughter committed, against her will, despite her history of psychotic manic episodes, anyone claiming that a GP can throw you into a padded cell against your will indefinitely is just flat out wrong.

Honestly this thread has just exposed the basic ignorance of some posters not just of the limits of our mental health system, but of their understanding of what mental illness is.

What was the "psychotic manic episode", that can mean a variety of things, from a hissy fit to a shopping mall massacre, and if it was serious I think the parent's would be doing more than "literally pull their hair out in desperation", I think you are confused about what mental health is, take for instance that poor woman in england who burn't herself and daughter, had her G.P. been aware of what was about to happen do you think he/she could not have had her committed?, I know that was england, but if it were to happen in Ireland, do you think a G.P. who was convinced enough such an event was about to occur, do you think they would not have the power to have that person committed?.

King Mob

espinolman wrote: »

Yes , however now these ignorant posters you mention know that a GP can sign a patient into a mental "hospital" thanks to uprising and myself enlightening them as to the facts .

You realise that you have offered nothing to support that assertion and all the evidence shows that assertion is wrong right?

Diogenes

uprising wrote: »

Another fella I knew was committed for his own safety, a visit to a HSE psychologist and he was committed against his will, he admits he was a danger to himself at the time and deluded, but never the less, he WAS committed.

By admitting he's a danger to himself he's voluntarily admitting himself. Jesus.

2. On request by the applicant, with an additional certificate from the doctor, the Gardai may escort a P.U.M.

The G.P. can be the applicant,

Really where, because of the link above

Mental Treatment Act 1945 wrote:

The Applican's Part

1. The applicant, usually the spouse, obtains an application from the Gardai, Solicitor or Health Board (G.Ps. need to take extra care in case of marital discord; remember the patient is the most important person).

2. The applicant must present a properly filled in and signed application before the G.P. can properly act.

3. The applicant arranges transport - not the G.P.

4. It is up to the applicant to arrange transfer to hospital of the patient,
and to advice the patient of his right to a secongd opinion if transfer is made before the admitting psychiatrists signs the committal order.

Nowhere does it say the GP can be the applicant. You're just making crap up now.

uprising

King Mob wrote: »

No they can't, thye can detain him but they have no power to sedate him.
And even then he can only be held for 24 hours.



No he can't. Applicant refers to the family member asking for the person to be committed.

Yes, when people are injured or are thought to be injured usually they go to the hospital in an ambulance.
After that you have no idea what happened or what decisions where made and by whom.
So you just decided the doctor did it against his will?


And is that all the detail you know?
Not very convincing,

Show me where it says a GP cannot be an applicant, show me where it says they can only be held for 24 hrs.

I'm not here to convince you of anything, you know nothing.

King Mob

uprising wrote: »

Show me where it says a GP cannot be an applicant,

Diogenes has pointed out above.
Again this is a link you provided.

uprising wrote: »

show me where it says they can only be held for 24 hrs.

This too was posted earlier.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62674721&postcount=173

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/health/mental-health/admission_to_a_psychiatric_hospital

When you are received at an approved psychiatric centre, you must be examined by a consultant psychiatrist on the staff. You may be detained for a maximum of 24 hours in the centre for the purpose of carrying out this examination.

uprising wrote: »

I'm not here to convince you of anything, you know nothing.

Really?
Cause I'm not the one who can't support my claims.

So since you asked me to provide evidence maybe you can get around to providing your own?

uprising

Diogenes wrote: »

By admitting he's a danger to himself he's voluntarily admitting himself. Jesus.



Really where, because of the link above



Nowhere does it say the GP can be the applicant. You're just making crap up now.

PART 2


Involuntary admission of persons to approved centres

Criteria for involuntary admission to approved centres.
8.—(1) A person may be involuntarily admitted to an approved centre pursuant to an application under section 9 or 12 and detained there on the grounds that he or she is suffering from a mental disorder.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall be construed as authorising the involuntary admission of a person to an approved centre by reason only of the fact that the person—

(a) is suffering from a personality disorder,

(b) is socially deviant, or

(c) is addicted to drugs or intoxicants.

(3) The Commission shall, from time to time, issue guidelines for staff in approved centres in relation to the provisions of this section.

9.—(1) Subject to subsection (4) and (6) and section 12 , where it is proposed to have a person (other than a child) involuntarily admitted to an approved centre, an application for a recommendation that the person be so admitted may be made to a registered medical practitioner by any of the following:

(a) the spouse or a relative of the person,

(b) an authorised officer,

(c) a member of the Garda Síochána, or

(d) subject to the provisions of subsection (2), any other person.

(2) The following persons shall be disqualified for making an application in respect of a person—

(a) a person under the age of 18 years,

(b) an authorised officer or a member of the Garda Síochána who is a relative of the person or of the spouse of the person,

(c) a member of the governing body, or the staff, or the person in charge, of the approved centre concerned,

(d) any person with an interest in the payments (if any) to be made in respect of the taking care of the person concerned in the approved centre concerned,

(e) any registered medical practitioner who provides a regular medical service at the approved centre concerned,

(f) the spouse, parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle or aunt of any of the persons mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs (b) to (e), whether of the whole blood, of the half blood or by affinity.

(3) An application shall be made in a form specified by the Commission.

(4) A person shall not make an application unless he or she has observed the person the subject of the application not more than 48 hours before the date of the making of the application.

(5) Where an application is made under subsection (1)(d), the application shall contain a statement of the reasons why it is so made, of the connection of the applicant with the person to whom the application relates, and of the circumstances in which the application is made.

(6) A person who, for the purposes of or in relation to an application, makes any statement which is to his or her knowledge false or misleading in any material particular, shall be guilty of an offence.

(7) In paragraph (c) of subsection (2), the reference to a member of the governing body of the approved centre concerned does not include a reference to a member of a health board.

(8) In this section—

“authorised officer” means an officer of a health board who is of a prescribed rank or grade and who is authorised by the chief executive officer to exercise the powers conferred on authorised officers by this section;

“spouse”, in relation to a person, does not include a spouse of a person who is living separately and apart from the person or in respect of whom an application or order has been made under the Domestic Violence Act, 1996 .

Diogenes

uprising wrote: »

What was the "psychotic manic episode", that can mean a variety of things, from a hissy fit to a shopping mall massacre, and if it was serious

I will not tattle on the internet, but suffice to say in several instances frankly she is lucky to have survived, and in two instances its nothing short of a miracle that no one else was killed or injured seriously. She caused hundreds of thousands of euros damage in one case.

I think the parent's would be doing more than "literally pull their hair out in desperation",

In one situation she called me in the midst of a full blown paranoid episode, and then drove off, there was no way for her parents to stop her, despite knowing her previous history. Imagine your daughter is in the midst of a delusional paranoid fit and gone into hiding, would you not consider the metaphor "tearing your hair out" as apt?

I think you are confused about what mental health is, take for instance that poor woman in england who burn't herself and daughter, had her G.P. been aware of what was about to happen do you think he/she could not have had her committed?, I know that was england, but if it were to happen in Ireland, do you think a G.P. who was convinced enough such an event was about to occur, do you think they would not have the power to have that person committed?.

Again you have to understand, firstly the person has to has to approach the GP and then the GP has to so confident that they can command social and psychiatric services to commit this person against their will. On the back of a fifteen minute GP visit? If the GP is wrong they open themselves to a career destroying lawsuit. Hence the vast majority of GPs will not commit someone against their will on the basis of a one visit because it's simply more than there job is worth.

uprising

Diogenes wrote: »

By admitting he's a danger to himself he's voluntarily admitting himself.

He admitted AFTERWARDS, not at the time.

uprising

King Mob wrote: »

When you are received at an approved psychiatric centre, you must be examined by a consultant psychiatrist on the staff. You may be detained for a maximum of 24 hours in the centre for the purpose of carrying out this examination

So since you asked me to provide evidence maybe you can get around to providing your own?

they can be examined for 24hrs, then either let out or secured there, not everybody is released after 24hrs. Also see my above post about APPLICANT.

King Mob

uprising wrote: »

9.—(1) Subject to subsection (4) and (6) and section 12 , where it is proposed to have a person (other than a child) involuntarily admitted to an approved centre, an application for a recommendation that the person be so admitted may be made to a registered medical practitioner by any of the following:

(e) any registered medical practitioner who provides a regular medical service at the approved centre concerned,

That's referring to a doctor employed by the mental hospital not the GP.

This clearly states that an application must be made to a GP by someone other than the GP.

If someone was recommended to be committed with a recommendation from the GP requested by the same GP, someone would see something fishy is going on.

And again this leaves said GP open to an assload of legal trouble.

At this stage you're assuming an abuse of the system.

Diogenes

uprising wrote: »

snip

And the bit you missed is "section 12"

12.—(1) Where a member of the Garda Síochána has reasonable grounds for believing that a person is suffering from a mental disorder and that because of the mental disorder there is a serious likelihood of the person causing immediate and serious harm to himself or herself or to other persons, the member may either alone or with any other members of the Garda Síochána—


(a) take the person into custody, and


(b) enter if need be by force any dwelling or other premises or any place if he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is to be found there.


(2) Where a member of the Garda Síochána takes a person into custody under subsection (1), he or she or any other member of the Garda Síochána shall make an application forthwith in a form specified by the Commission to a registered medical practitioner for a recommendation.


(3) The provisions of sections 10 and 11 shall apply to an application under this section as they apply to an application under section 9 with any necessary modifications.


(4) If an application under this section is refused by the registered medical practitioner pursuant to the provisions of section 10 , the person the subject of the application shall be released from custody immediately.


(5) Where, following an application under this section, a recommendation is made in relation to a person, a member of the Garda Síochána shall remove the person to the approved centre specified in the recommendation.

Essentially it's saying that

9.—(1) Subject to subsection (4) and (6) and section 12 , where it is proposed to have a person (other than a child) involuntarily admitted to an approved centre, an application for a recommendation that the person be so admitted may be made to a registered medical practitioner by any of the following:

That a GP can admit someone against their will if the Garda come to them and meet certain criteria.

It does not mean that a GP can lock you up in the padded cell on whimsy.

This is beginning to border on the offensive.

Diogenes

uprising wrote: »

He admitted AFTERWARDS, not at the time.

Now you're just changing your story

uprising

Diogenes wrote: »

I will not tattle on the internet, but suffice to say in several instances frankly she is lucky to have survived, and in two instances its nothing short of a miracle that no one else was killed or injured seriously. She caused hundreds of thousands of euros damage in one case.



In one situation she called me in the midst of a full blown paranoid episode, and then drove off, there was no way for her parents to stop her, despite knowing her previous history. Imagine your daughter is in the midst of a delusional paranoid fit and gone into hiding, would you not consider the metaphor "tearing your hair out" as apt?



Again you have to understand, firstly the person has to has to approach the GP and then the GP has to so confident that they can command social and psychiatric services to commit this person against their will. On the back of a fifteen minute GP visit? If the GP is wrong they open themselves to a career destroying lawsuit. Hence the vast majority of GPs will not commit someone against their will on the basis of a one visit because it's simply more than there job is worth.

Sounds like a rich girl had a hissy fit and craved attention, maybe it was sparked by her not getting a LV bag, or her sweet 16 carpet was the wrong shade of red, maybe she was just a spoilt brat from a child and never grew up.

King Mob

uprising wrote: »

they can be examined for 24hrs, then either let out or secured there, not everybody is released after 24hrs. Also see my above post about APPLICANT.

Yes then the doctor examing you has to put his name to the examination. They aren't going to do that unless they're sure.

And then they can only hold you indefinitely if you are considered a Person of unsound mind which requires a whole new round of forms and examinations.

The only way the stuff you are claiming can happen is if your entire family, your GP, the Garda and everyone at the mental hospital are directly out to get you and are ignoring the danger of career ending legal actions.

Diogenes

uprising wrote: »

Sounds like a rich girl had a hissy fit and craved attention, maybe it was sparked by her not getting a LV bag, or her sweet 16 carpet was the wrong shade of red, maybe she was just a spoilt brat from a child and never grew up.

Thats a perceptively obnoxious and ignorant statement. This is a very nice and decent human being, who has a serious mental illness with a family that loves her. She suffers from a form of Clinical depression defined as Bi Polar. When in a manic peak and not on medication she can do things that she will later regret, she's struggled with this for years.

You are only exposing your basic ignorance of the complexities of mental health issues with such a broad and baseless stroke.

uprising

Diogenes wrote: »

Nowhere does it say the GP can be the applicant. You're just making crap up now.

“authorised officer” means an officer of a health board who is of a prescribed rank or grade and who is authorised by the chief executive officer to exercise the powers conferred on authorised officers by this section;

Diogenes wrote: »

Now you're just changing your story

Another fella I knew was committed for his own safety, a visit to a HSE psychologist and he was committed against his will, he admits he was a danger to himself at the time and deluded, but never the less, he WAS committed.

Admits= present tense
Admitted= past tense

I did not say " He admitted he was a danger to himself at the time".

Occam

uprising wrote: »

Sounds like a rich girl had a hissy fit and craved attention, maybe it was sparked by her not getting a LV bag, or her sweet 16 carpet was the wrong shade of red, maybe she was just a spoilt brat from a child and never grew up.

A shameful, and ignorant post.

King Mob

uprising wrote: »

Another fella I knew was committed for his own safety, a visit to a HSE psychologist and he was committed against his will, he admits he was a danger to himself at the time and deluded, but never the less, he WAS committed.

You have offered no details about this.
How can you be sure that the psychologist committed by himself?
How do you know that the family didn't request it?

I find you telling of this story quite suspect as psychologists are actually allowed to diagnose anyone.

uprising

Diogenes wrote: »

Thats a perceptively obnoxious and ignorant statement. This is a very nice and decent human being, who has a serious mental illness with a family that loves her. She suffers from a form of Clinical depression defined as Bi Polar. When in a manic peak and not on medication she can do things that she will later regret, she's struggled with this for years.

You are only exposing your basic ignorance of the complexities of mental health issues with such a broad and baseless stroke.

Listen I have suffered depression for a long time, I know lots of people, good friends who have committed suicide, I was suicidal at a stage in my life myself, I've also played on depression to my advantage at times, use it as an excuse, but the times you tend to do this is when you are actually least depressed, I'm not saying the girl hasn't got mental issue's, but I don't think they are to a degree where she would actually seriously attemp suicide, although I could be totally wrong as nothing is for sure with mental health and I don't know her circumstances, but believe me if she was about to go shopping to Dundrum with an AK47 any G.P. who knew this was about to unfold could and would have her sent to Dundrum, not the shopping centre by the way.

King Mob

uprising wrote: »

I'm not saying the girl hasn't got mental issue's,

That's exactly what you did.

uprising wrote: »

although I could be totally wrong as nothing is for sure with mental health and I don't know her circumstances,

Yet that didn't stop you from jumping to conclusions did it? Nor did it stop you jumping to conclusions about the examples you provided.
You don't know these peoples circumstances or the circumstances about their treatments. But that doesn't seem to stop you jumping to the conclusion you want to jump to.

uprising wrote: »

but believe me if she was about to go shopping to Dundrum with an AK47 any G.P. who knew this was about to unfold could and would have her sent to Dundrum, not the shopping centre by the way.

That's entirely different isn't it?
Then technically she's committing a crime and would be arrested (possession of an illegal firearm, intent to commit murder), She could then use psychological impairment as a defence in court, which would also require an assload of red tape.

You have nothing to support your claims and we've shown evidence contrary to your claims.
The fact is the things you claim simply can't happen.

uprising

I'll leave this for now and **** **** *** *** **** **** ** ** *** ******, I'll be back with proof that a GP has the power and authority to commit a person to a mental institution.

If what lies behind them stars were known I'd be on a lifetime ban, try work it out

King Mob

uprising wrote: »

I'll be back with proof that a GP has the power and authority to commit a person to a mental institution.

That kind of implies that you don't have the proof now and didn't have it when you made all those claims.

If that's the case what where you basing the claims on in the first place?

K-9

Personally, I'd be far more worried about family members and friends discharging people against medical advice.

I know of 2 people locally who committed suicide shortly afterwards. Dismissing medical opinion and evidence can lead to serious consequences.